Wrought Iron Bridge Co. v. Commissioners of Highways

Citations

• 101 Ill. 518
• 1882 Ill. LEXIS 116

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—under general issue in assumpsit. Under the general issue in assumpsit it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove the defendant’s promise, as charged in the declaration, by direct proof, or to show by the evidence a state of facts from which the law will imply such promise.</p> <p>2. Pleading—sufficiency of declaration admitted by pleading the general issue. By pleading the general issue in assumpsit the defendant, as a general rule, impliedly admits the legal sufficiency of the declaration, and the right of the plaintiff to recover upon proof of the facts therein charged. But there are cases in which, notwithstanding this implied admission, the declaration will be insufficient- to support a judgment for the plaintiff.</p> <p>3. Appeals—reviewing questions of fact by Supreme Court. The decision of the Appellate Court upon all questions of controverted fact is made final and conclusive upon this court by the statute, except as to certain classes of cases enumerated therein.</p> <p>4. The statutory provision making the judgments of the Appellate Courts “final and conclusive as to all matters of fact in controversy, ” embraces not only the principal facts upon which a right to recover is claimed, but also the evidentiary facts, or facts which are mere evidence of the principal facts,—in other words, it includes the ultimate facts to be proven on the trial, together with all subordinate facts offered as evidence of their existence.</p> <p>5. Same—inference as to»the facts from a finding against plaintiff. Where an issue of fact is found against the plaintiff by both the circuit and Appellate courts, the legal inference is that the plaintiff failed to prove the principal facts upon which his right to recover rested,—in other words, that the evidentiary facts did not sustain the principal or ultimate facts.</p> <p>6. Same—decision of Appellate Court not conclusive on questions of law. y, during the progress of a trial, the court improperly admits or excludes e